# United States v. 329.73 Acres of Land, Situated in Grenada and Yalobusha Counties, State of Mississippi, and J.G. Carter

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 1983 · 704 F.2d 800

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470512

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 329.73 ACRES OF LAND, SITUATED IN GRENADA AND YALOBUSHA COUNTIES, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, and J.G. Carter, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 12, 1983
- **Citations:** 704 F.2d 800; 20 ERC 1025; 20 ERC (BNA) 1025; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28040
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Reavley
- **Judges:** Clark, Brown, Gee, Rubin, Reavley, Politz, Randall, Tate, Johnson, Williams, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Higgin-Botham
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470512

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting appellant’s attack on the probative value of a landowner’s testimony regarding the value of his land before and after the imposition of a flowage easement because appellant’s argument “overlooks the fact that the opinion testimony of a landowner as to the value of hi…
- holding EAJA applied before deciding petitioner was prevailing party

## Opinion text

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
with whom RANDALL and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:
I agree with the majority holding that a condemnee may obtain his attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act if the position of the government was not substantially justified and the condemnee is the prevailing party, i.e., if he recovers by the lawsuit compensation for the condemned interest in land greater than the amount which was offered or deposited by the government. The earlier statute, 42 U.S.C. § 4654 , does not specifically provide otherwise. I find no inconsistency between the two statutes. The earlier statute authorizes cost reimbursement if the United States abandons the proceeding, which initiation and discontinuation may or may not be substantially justified, or if the government is denied the acquisition by final judgment (which, again, may or may not have been after substantially justified decisions on part of the government).
Nevertheless, I agree with Part I of Judge Rubin’s dissent. The condemnee must prevail on the entire lawsuit to be entitled to attorney fees under my reading of the Equal Access to Justice Act. The landowner here has only sought fees for successfully resisting the government’s appeal. Finding no statutory basis for that award, I would deny it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470512. Public record. Not legal advice.